Ex Parte Nishikawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 14, 2013

10806713 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/806,713 03/23/2004 Yuko Nishikawa 7114-81231-US 2662
37123 7590 06/14/2013
FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
EXAMINER
TAYLOR, JOSHUA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YUKO NISHIKAWA, DAYAN GOLDEN,
MICHAEL A. BERGERON, HIMGAN WIBISONO, and
PHILIP MCKAY
____________________

Appeal 2011-011686
Application 10/806,713
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-011686
Application 10/806,713

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to browsing and selection
interfaces used with content guides (Spec. ¶ [0009]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:

providing access to a plurality of characterizing
descriptors for each of a plurality of discrete selectable items of
audio/video content;

providing a program guide by simultaneously displaying
a plurality of the characterizing descriptors for each of a
plurality of the discrete selectable items using a browsing and
selection interface that bears at least some of the characterizing
descriptors and wherein three spatial dimensions for the
browsing and selection interface are simultaneously displayed,
such that the browsing and selection interface is depicted as a
plurality of three dimensional objects, wherein each of the
plurality of three dimensional objects corresponds to a different
time and displays a plurality of characterizing descriptors
corresponding to that time;

responding to user input by scrolling a display of the
plurality of the characterizing descriptors for each of a plurality
of the discrete selectable items wherein the characterizing
descriptors displayed on each of the plurality of three
dimensional objects may be scrolled independently of the
characterizing descriptors displayed on the other three
dimensional objects.

Appeal 2011-011686
Application 10/806,713

3
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Nakamura (US Pat. Pub. 2003/0167466 A1),
Ohkura (US 6,005,601), and Anwar (US 5,767,854).
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Nakamura, Ohkura, Anwar, and Sai (US
6,822,661).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in combining the references as
the Examiner’s suggested modifications to Nakamura and Ohkura are
“extreme and hardly obvious,” the suggested modification to Nakamura
would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, and the suggested
modification to Ohkura would change it principle of operation (Br. 11, 14,
18). We do not agree with Appellants’ contentions.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (see
Ans. 11-23). The Examiner has addressed each and every argument in a
detailed manner. Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner’s detailed
findings. Particularly, we agree the references do not teach away from the
combination and are not rendered unsatisfactory for their intended use by the
combination. “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of
ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27
F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appellants have provided no such evidence
of discouragement or divergence and the Examiner has provided reasonable
Appeal 2011-011686
Application 10/806,713

4
arguments to the contrary (see, e.g., Ans.15-16). Further, it also appears
Appellants are arguing the references alone and not in combination as the
Examiner asserts (Ans.14, 17).
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We
find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual
findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 9, and claims 2-8 and 10-13, not
separately argued (Br. 19).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc